Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law
police state
Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law - by Stephen Lendman
Obama supports draconian FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act provisions. Justification given is national security and war on terror hokum.
Henceforth, anyone anywhere, including US citizens, may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, spurious allegations or none at all.
No reasonable proof is needed, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Henceforth, indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations.
Presidents now have unchecked dictatorial powers to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.
Constitutional, statute and international laws won't apply. Martial law will replace them if so ordered.
As a result, US military personnel anywhere in the world may arrest US citizens and others, throw them in military dungeons, and hold them indefinitely outside constitutionally mandated civil protections, including habeas rights, due process, and other judicial procedures.
In other words, presidents may order anyone arrested and imprisoned for life without charge or trial. Tyranny arrived in America. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections.
Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, none at all, or, for foreign nationals, sent abroad to torture prison hellholes.
Civil Libertarian Responses
On December 14, an ACLU press release headlined, "White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat," saying:
Obama "support(s) passage of the (FY2012) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions (to) authorize the US military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world."
Responding, ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Laura Murphy said:
"The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If (he) signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and America's reputation for upholding the rule of law."
The last time Congress authorized indefinite detentions for uncharged US citizens without trial was in 1950 over Harry Truman's veto.
The Emergency Detention Act provision of the Internal Security Act authorized incarceration for those considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage.
It was never used, then repealed by the 1971 Non-Detenton Act, stating:
"No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."
At issue was never again subjecting US citizens to lawless internment the way Japanese Americans were in 1942. At the time, loyal citizens were forced into War Relocation Camps lawlessly.
Murphy faintly hoped Obama would emulate Truman. However, Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said he insisted on subjecting US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals. The original Senate bill excluded them. At his request, they were added.
ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer called NDAA "an awful bill...." He and other civil libertarians are outraged by its passage. Jaffer added:
This bill will "make permanent as an American law this fixture of worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial. (It's) a bill that would further militarize counterterrorism policy."
It's "a bill that will make it harder to close Guantanamo. It has all the problems that we identified earlier, and it is really quite astonishing and disappointing that (Obama) is withdrawing his veto threat."
All along, of course, it was disingenuous and hollow. As explained above, he insists on subjecting uncharged US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals.
On December 14, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said:
Obama "made a choice with chilling consequences today when he announced he would not veto the NDAA despite the lack of change to provisions of the bill that make it even more difficult to shut down the prison at Guantanamo and make indefinite military detention(s) without trial a permanent feature of the US legal system."
Throughout his tenure, Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. Besides trashing rule of law principles and other democratic values, waging multiple imperial wars, sanctioning torture, wrecking America's economy, and turning a blind eye to growing human need, he's taking a major step toward institutionalizing tyranny by supporting the "indefinite detention of citizens and non-citizens alike without charge or trial...."
On December 15, Bill of Rights Day, the Senate passed NDAA following House passage on December 14. On December 16, Obama will sign it into law, in defiance of Bill of Rights protections he'll further abrogate with his signature.
As a result, December 15 may become known as a day of infamy when tyranny replaced constitutional law.
Henceforth, no one anywhere will be safe, and there's no place to hide.
Major Media Scoundrels for Tyranny
Notably, US media scoundrels largely ignored the bill for months. On December 14, ahead of its enactment, The New York Times misreported its significance by failing to explain how US citizens are affected. Instead, it discussed inconsequential language changes and quoted a White House statement, saying:
"As a result of (House/Senate conference committee changes), we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the president's senior advisors will not recommend a veto."
A same day Washington Post (WP) article also ignored the bill's draconian provisions. It quoted the same White House statement, and falsely claimed civilian authorities, not America's military, will be authorized to make arrests on US soil.
A December 13 WP editorial also misreported, claiming US citizens won't be subjected to military detention. In addition, like The Times and is own December 14 article, it discussed (ahead of passage) inconsequential changes while omitting explanation of constitutionally destructive draconian provisions.
Of course, no one ever accused America's major media of being long on truth and full disclosure. In serving wealth and power, they fail on all counts by inverting truth and avoiding what journalists are supposed to do - their job.
Readers, viewers and listeners have a choice. Growing numbers exercising it by walking away.
They're tuning out and making credible choices for real news and analysis more needed today perhaps than ever, given America's draconian direction.
Hopefully eventually they all will before it's too late to matter.
A Final Comment
On December 14, Nader.org headlined, "Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender," saying:
The FY 2012 NDAA "will finish off some critical American rights under our Constitution." Two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) urged an Obama veto, saying:
"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past..."
"A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn't sought....for domestic law enforcement...."
"A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantanamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future."
Other military, security, and former government officials also expressed opposition.
This law will deny US citizens due process and judicial fairness. It will let military forces become law enforcers. It will make America a police state. It will abolish constitutional freedoms besides others already lost.
This "arbitrary, open-ended dictatorial White House mandate was never subjected to even a House or Senate Committee hearing....It was rammed through by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees without the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees invoking their concurrent jurisdiction for public hearings."
As president, Obama's done the impossible. He's governed worse than his fiercest critics feared, worse than Bush on domestic and foreign policies.
This law furthers destroy American freedom. Obama's support and moral cowardice assures it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Obama supports draconian FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act provisions. Justification given is national security and war on terror hokum.
Henceforth, anyone anywhere, including US citizens, may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, spurious allegations or none at all.
No reasonable proof is needed, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Henceforth, indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations.
Presidents now have unchecked dictatorial powers to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.
Constitutional, statute and international laws won't apply. Martial law will replace them if so ordered.
As a result, US military personnel anywhere in the world may arrest US citizens and others, throw them in military dungeons, and hold them indefinitely outside constitutionally mandated civil protections, including habeas rights, due process, and other judicial procedures.
In other words, presidents may order anyone arrested and imprisoned for life without charge or trial. Tyranny arrived in America. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections.
Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, none at all, or, for foreign nationals, sent abroad to torture prison hellholes.
Civil Libertarian Responses
On December 14, an ACLU press release headlined, "White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat," saying:
Obama "support(s) passage of the (FY2012) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions (to) authorize the US military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world."
Responding, ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Laura Murphy said:
"The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If (he) signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and America's reputation for upholding the rule of law."
The last time Congress authorized indefinite detentions for uncharged US citizens without trial was in 1950 over Harry Truman's veto.
The Emergency Detention Act provision of the Internal Security Act authorized incarceration for those considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage.
It was never used, then repealed by the 1971 Non-Detenton Act, stating:
"No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."
At issue was never again subjecting US citizens to lawless internment the way Japanese Americans were in 1942. At the time, loyal citizens were forced into War Relocation Camps lawlessly.
Murphy faintly hoped Obama would emulate Truman. However, Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said he insisted on subjecting US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals. The original Senate bill excluded them. At his request, they were added.
ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer called NDAA "an awful bill...." He and other civil libertarians are outraged by its passage. Jaffer added:
This bill will "make permanent as an American law this fixture of worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial. (It's) a bill that would further militarize counterterrorism policy."
It's "a bill that will make it harder to close Guantanamo. It has all the problems that we identified earlier, and it is really quite astonishing and disappointing that (Obama) is withdrawing his veto threat."
All along, of course, it was disingenuous and hollow. As explained above, he insists on subjecting uncharged US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals.
On December 14, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said:
Obama "made a choice with chilling consequences today when he announced he would not veto the NDAA despite the lack of change to provisions of the bill that make it even more difficult to shut down the prison at Guantanamo and make indefinite military detention(s) without trial a permanent feature of the US legal system."
Throughout his tenure, Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. Besides trashing rule of law principles and other democratic values, waging multiple imperial wars, sanctioning torture, wrecking America's economy, and turning a blind eye to growing human need, he's taking a major step toward institutionalizing tyranny by supporting the "indefinite detention of citizens and non-citizens alike without charge or trial...."
On December 15, Bill of Rights Day, the Senate passed NDAA following House passage on December 14. On December 16, Obama will sign it into law, in defiance of Bill of Rights protections he'll further abrogate with his signature.
As a result, December 15 may become known as a day of infamy when tyranny replaced constitutional law.
Henceforth, no one anywhere will be safe, and there's no place to hide.
Major Media Scoundrels for Tyranny
Notably, US media scoundrels largely ignored the bill for months. On December 14, ahead of its enactment, The New York Times misreported its significance by failing to explain how US citizens are affected. Instead, it discussed inconsequential language changes and quoted a White House statement, saying:
"As a result of (House/Senate conference committee changes), we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the president's senior advisors will not recommend a veto."
A same day Washington Post (WP) article also ignored the bill's draconian provisions. It quoted the same White House statement, and falsely claimed civilian authorities, not America's military, will be authorized to make arrests on US soil.
A December 13 WP editorial also misreported, claiming US citizens won't be subjected to military detention. In addition, like The Times and is own December 14 article, it discussed (ahead of passage) inconsequential changes while omitting explanation of constitutionally destructive draconian provisions.
Of course, no one ever accused America's major media of being long on truth and full disclosure. In serving wealth and power, they fail on all counts by inverting truth and avoiding what journalists are supposed to do - their job.
Readers, viewers and listeners have a choice. Growing numbers exercising it by walking away.
They're tuning out and making credible choices for real news and analysis more needed today perhaps than ever, given America's draconian direction.
Hopefully eventually they all will before it's too late to matter.
A Final Comment
On December 14, Nader.org headlined, "Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender," saying:
The FY 2012 NDAA "will finish off some critical American rights under our Constitution." Two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) urged an Obama veto, saying:
"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past..."
"A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn't sought....for domestic law enforcement...."
"A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantanamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future."
Other military, security, and former government officials also expressed opposition.
This law will deny US citizens due process and judicial fairness. It will let military forces become law enforcers. It will make America a police state. It will abolish constitutional freedoms besides others already lost.
This "arbitrary, open-ended dictatorial White House mandate was never subjected to even a House or Senate Committee hearing....It was rammed through by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees without the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees invoking their concurrent jurisdiction for public hearings."
As president, Obama's done the impossible. He's governed worse than his fiercest critics feared, worse than Bush on domestic and foreign policies.
This law furthers destroy American freedom. Obama's support and moral cowardice assures it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
For more information:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
So, now we have had the American Reichstag Fire of September 11, 2001 to perpetrate war and fascism to maximize profits for the capitalist class codified into law upon the expected signature of Democrat Obama with this concentration camp provision to the military funding bill to stifle opposition to the war profiteering, which is destroying the planet and this society.
It is Senate Roll Call Vote 230 on HR 1540 at
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230
passing 86 to 13 with 1 not voting
and House Roll Call Vote 932 on HR 1540 at
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml
passing 283 to 136, with Democrats voting 93 to 93 and Republicans voting 190 yes and 43 no.
In the Democratically controlled Senate, only 6 Democrats voted no.
San Francisco's House Rep Nancy Pelosi and California's senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted for fascism.
The twin parties of war and fascism are the Democrat and Republican parties, promoted by the same capitalist class to maximize their profits. The only reason the Democrats exist is to keep Reds and Greens out of office which is why they mouth half way decent phrases when running for office. Upon election to office, they carry out the same capitalist agenda for which they were paid to run for office as the Republicans. As capitalism decays, the facade of parliamentary democracy is removed and the capitalist class, in desperation, resorts to fascism, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in office. It is always darkest before the dawn but dawn can only come if you act. At the very least, change your voter registration to socialist Peace & Freedom Party or the Green Party.
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/
http://www.cagreens.org/
http://www.gp.org/index.php
It is Senate Roll Call Vote 230 on HR 1540 at
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230
passing 86 to 13 with 1 not voting
and House Roll Call Vote 932 on HR 1540 at
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml
passing 283 to 136, with Democrats voting 93 to 93 and Republicans voting 190 yes and 43 no.
In the Democratically controlled Senate, only 6 Democrats voted no.
San Francisco's House Rep Nancy Pelosi and California's senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted for fascism.
The twin parties of war and fascism are the Democrat and Republican parties, promoted by the same capitalist class to maximize their profits. The only reason the Democrats exist is to keep Reds and Greens out of office which is why they mouth half way decent phrases when running for office. Upon election to office, they carry out the same capitalist agenda for which they were paid to run for office as the Republicans. As capitalism decays, the facade of parliamentary democracy is removed and the capitalist class, in desperation, resorts to fascism, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in office. It is always darkest before the dawn but dawn can only come if you act. At the very least, change your voter registration to socialist Peace & Freedom Party or the Green Party.
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/
http://www.cagreens.org/
http://www.gp.org/index.php
Under the passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could some U.S. activists (Retroactively) be subject to indefinite U.S. Military or other detention (without charges or Trial) if picked up while traveling abroad? American Citizen activists under the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 appear vulnerable to indefinite detention if they travel abroad because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do “illegally” in the future in the U.S. or overseas.
It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scope of Section 1021 and other provision in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not just persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists, organizations, combatants and belligerents—foreign and Americans Citizens that reside in the U.S.. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists; (3) being a “Combatant” or (4) “Belligerent” is vague and broadly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action abroad—could be charged with all (four) under The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.
Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone including U.S. Citizens in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or engage in or supported a violent act in the past and might commit a violent act in the future or threatens national security.
Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities “Supporting Terrorism” a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired the aforementioned in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention for being a “Belligerent.”
It is foreseeable that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.
It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scope of Section 1021 and other provision in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not just persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists, organizations, combatants and belligerents—foreign and Americans Citizens that reside in the U.S.. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists; (3) being a “Combatant” or (4) “Belligerent” is vague and broadly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action abroad—could be charged with all (four) under The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.
Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone including U.S. Citizens in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or engage in or supported a violent act in the past and might commit a violent act in the future or threatens national security.
Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities “Supporting Terrorism” a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired the aforementioned in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention for being a “Belligerent.”
It is foreseeable that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network